Dear Editor,
The tossing out of the No-Confidence Motion against the Town Clerk of Georgetown by the Mayor at last Monday’s statutory meeting of the Council turned out to be nothing more than a comedy of errors.
First, I would like to know under what authority was the Mayor acting when she disallowed the motion? Could she counsel the citizenry as to who or what gave her that authority?
Second, it is clear that the Mayor does not understand the difference between legal opinion and legal advice.
It is wholly unacceptable for the Mayor to adopt the guidance sought and obtained from an Attorney who is the husband of a sitting Councillor, privately by the Town Clerk, and consequently use it to disallow the No-Confidence Motion brought against him (Town Clerk) which was on the agenda for discussion.
It must first be noted that this recent advice provided by the Attorney was given privately to the Town Clerk, and not requested by nor provided to the Council. So how could the Mayor take action on private advice given?
This is not a court order or an official proclamation by a Judge (or panel of Judges) nor is it a legal opinion sought or obtained by the Council. How was this private advice even placed on the agenda or tabled before Council? Clearly now, a precedent has been set so that every and any municipal employee against whom disciplinary action is being brought can run to their private Attorney, get some legal advice in their favour, hand it to the Mayor and then they will tie the Council’s hands. Completely incongruous!
Another serious concern I have about the Georgetown Municipality is their tractability when it comes to adherence to the laws of our country and the conditions of employment of their workers. How is it that no confidence motions were successfully effected against other Town Clerks but can’t be used against this one?
What happened at the last meeting amounts to collusion. It should be obvious to everyone watching that the ‘Terrible Trio’ have no intention of being separated, that protection is being provided to a small group, and that a fear exists within City Hall that if there is any infiltration or opening up of the clandestine assemblage there, that many dirty secrets will come to light.
It is clear that in the foreseeable future, there will be no accountability, transparency or democracy at City Hall. Suddenly records that were missing for years have popped up after threats were issued of prosecution.
Regards,
Deodarie Putulall
